Critical remarks regarding the GOOD-FORM-theology
of the architectural-doctrine

With reference to the New
Years Eve tradition of Urnaesch as a vital tradition of agrarian philosophy and as core element of a traditional architecture
and settlement identity

by Nold Egenter

INTRODUCTION

Recently by chance I stumbeled over a text, which fits very
well into this architectural-anthropological research mosaic. More precisely,
there are a quantity of larger and smaller stones at hand which have to
be discussed how they fit into the picture. There is the idea of tradition',
in contrast to written and objectively documented history. There are the
farmers with their old traditional house culture and the urban architectural
missionary, who thinks he is sitting on the absolute truth, some sort of
theology of GOOD FORM. And third we have to deal with the relationship
of urban and rural domains and corresponding value schemes. Ultimately
we are involved into the relation of architecture and architectural theory.

The author of the text discussed in the following is the founder and
long-time editor of a Swiss architecture magazine with boulevard-character
(Benedikt Loderer, 'Hochparterre'). Besides his role as an editor and architectural
journalist, he understands himself also as an architectural theorist.

The text we are going to discuss is found in a little book with the
title "Man sees with his Feet" and contains 13 speeches. Loderer has presented
them in front of various architecture-oriented committees. The general
topic is 'Architecture and Design'. Some of these speeches are not to be
understood really as such, they are at the margins of what can be taken
serious. However, in spite of its shallow jargon, the particular text,
which we have selected, touches important points of the architectural discussion.
Above all, as was indicated already, the relationship of city and countryside,
of written history and tradition, between so-called art-teachings or architectural
theory and local transmissions of harmonious principles of living.

Finally the text also shows a devastating cultural deficit, which however
should not be put on Loderer's shoulders. The situation is much worse.
The level is fairly representative for the niveau of knowledge in the architectural
discipline.

However, if we are watching more closely, the matter is becoming rather
uncanny. On this supremely clumsy way whole landscapes of our lived environment
are ultimately subjected to certain values and ideas. The process leads
then to the corresponding planning processes and construction. Who wonders
about how our cities' look? They should be bombed down to ashes, Botta
once said when he spoke about the global condition of postmodern urban
environments. And: garbage for the future.

Incredible, how Loderer, our urban GOODFORM-theologist attacks his rural
tradition loving listeners without knowing anything about their local culture.
He simply treats them with his arrogant urban scold.

He refers to some encyclopedia. Evidently he is not an analphabet. Farmers
listen to him. Unfortunately however: absolute ignorance with regard to
the essence of traditional culture. Even if there are only words, what
he proposes, in fact, is extremely brutal. Basically, what he suggests:
we have to bomb the local tradition, to annihilate the local houses, the
kill local culture.

Tradition is dead, evidently the title wants to frighten the farmers
still convinced of the meanings of their own local tradition. Their tradition
is merely hollow rotten deadly facade, the 'architectural missionary' says,
including their traditional festive clothes, as well as their homes (locally
tenderly called 'Heimetli', the missionary uses it to make clear what is
meant by his attack). They should give up this covering up their nests,
the whole masquerade. They should use their brains and start to think about
how they could feed their environments with reasonable innovations.

Wow! Clash of cultures in the same state...

BOMBING TRADITION?

But let us have a more closer look at this drama.

Again, the fighting goes for a corpse. It is called tradition now. Though,
as the title implies, it has already disappeared completely, one wants
to expel also the bad spirits and ghosts of tradition to prevent it from
returning.

We have mentioned it already, initially the author cites the encyclopedia
hoping that this legitimates his superiority over his tradition bound adversaries.
It promises authority. But what is derived from it ends vaguely in semireligious
statementsthe Halbreligissen, which is found then indeed somewhat abruptly
scientifically as filters against to intense charm demand.
"Tradition is a help for life."

From this banality Loderer starts his frontal attack.. He first makes
fun of the farmers dressed in traditonal clothes on festive occasions and
ridicules their earrings as part of the local tradition. All this, he says
has become marginal. What makes our modern lives today, this is the truth,
the modern equipment. The car, fashionable clothes, working in the industry,
all this is what makes it to be modern. It has nothing to do with tradition
anymore.

"Tradition is a sentimental collection of pictures in our heads."

This confrontation between the farmers from Appenzell with their traditional
Sunday facades and our modern archi-missionary preaching his economical
Ethics against the spirits of tradition is curious. Seen the other way
round it shows also the stereotypes of the urban projections. The rurals
are underdeveloped, they can not think reasonably etc. the urban educated
judgement is the progressive truth. Paradoxically both attitudes are on
the same level regarding the simplicity involved.

In fact, something fairly frightening is shown, a totalitarian trait
of modernism. A pseudoreligious postulate: all must instantly be truth.
Should all the traditional village centres be wiped out throughout the
country? And what with the historical cities. Forget aubout history? Note
that there is a saying going that LeCorbusiers mother was a strong believer
in Gnostics. It could explain a lot about this absoulte intolerance of
modernism and its castrated antihistorism. Sincerely, there is not much
difference between the outskirts of modern cities and some functional dwelling
camps for professionals or prisoners. It reminds me of what Levy-Strauss
discusses about some indigeneous peoples. When all efforts to convert them
proved useless the missionaries with some pretext destroyed their traditional
dwellings and related toposemantic indicators and built them modern barracks
in a very different concept, their indigeneous mentality structure collapsed
and they became Christians.

But let us go on with Loderer. With farmers one should not only talk
about Sunday-things. The economy is important. But Loderer speaks of an
urban economy. The farmhouse ends as a "means of production" in his concept
of agriculture. The farmers home, his 'Heimetli', ends up on the same level
with CocaCola cans and MacDonald -cardbord-boxes for hamburgers. "Tradition
is a product".

The problems of the farmers are old, he continues, and each has been
solved countless times already. In contrast to this modern problems are
young, always young. Prevention of water pollution, environmental protection,
over aging, all tremendous problems, still unresolved. And in particular
in regard to construction we are still shocked by our fast growth after
the second world war. We are in a growth shock, still suffering from digestive
troubles.

Note the very sensible and fine humour of our Archi-Missionary and his
love for young problems.

Two generations ago, he goes on, the rural population was poor. Of course
this implies: today we are rich. A second economy argument. The solution,
finally.
Tradition "was always a method for the overcoming or avoidance of shortage."
Inversely this is to say: hunger, need and cold exist, where tradition
still rules.

From this rather simplistic concept of tradition as 'poverty' Loderer
quickly moves to his architectural theory, which can be translated somehow
as the 'wrong-home-theory'. Loderer uses the term 'Hüsli', which is
in fact a common diminutive in Swiss children's babble language, meaning
a very small house of the size children play with. It is also used to reduce
a house of any normal size on the scale of a toy. With this fairly refined
linguistic 'tool' he tells his auditors, that they live in the wrong houses.

In the domain of building, he says, the concept of tradition corresponds
to a "collection of constructive solutions referring basically to the same
type of construction." This " common instrument for gaining the livelihood
of a family unit is not given anymore today." [implizit: das Haus muss
so aussehen wie das Leben darin]

The 'Hüsli' covered with wood in the style of the Appenzell countryside
do not show whether they are inhabited by local peoples of the Appenzell
tradition or 'agglomerites' from the lowlands. The land is not "production
surface" anymore, but "luxury-commodity for enjoyment". Consequently the
judgements have to be clear. The conclusion inevitably is: "The tradition
is dead."

Finally the architectural missionary closes by hinting to the role of
the Swiss Agency for the protection of traditional environments (Heimatschutz).
It is the duty of these institutions to function as police, judge and court
and to expell the bad spirits from this country stricken with the sickness
of dwelling in 'wrong homes'.

Since we (that is, those educated urbans who are responsible for the
architecture of this world) know that tradition is dead, that it is a corpse,
this region has to be saved, eventually against common sense. Landscapes
like the Appenzell threatened by this formal disaster, devastated by this
awful masquerade with wrong facades have to be saved by all costs.

Evidently, furious battles are fought here with vulnerating words. Loderer^s
shallowly funny word flow should not blind us for the fact, that there
is a serious problem. which extends now already. Well over a half century
now its destructive energy, like a fire of epidemic proportions, expands
over the Swiss mountainscapes once rich in vernacular house-traditions.
Paradoxically those who conserved or adapted their 'architectural paganism'
like Zermatt, are economically flourishing and have rich numbers of visitors
from all over the world, giving somehow the lie to Loderer's 'wrong-home-theory'.
Is Loderer some sort of an architectural 'Ötzi', a fossile in view
of the global preference for the 'rural', for the architecturally 'pagan'?
Is his urban totalitarianism deeply reprehensible, particularly in view
of his absolute ingnorance of rural conditions?

Beyond the rather poor role Loderer plays in this game, the main problem
is of a more systematic character. Modern architecture interprets itself
as a branch of 'modern art' , thus using the paradigms of the urban history
of European art (-> Udo Kultermann, History of the history of art). As
part of the urban history it becomes part of the urban value centrism which
produces such totalitarian outlooks regarding the rural devalued apriori,
as we have seen it in Loderer's 'speech'. Objectivity is lost. Any scientific
process is supressed. Any discussions become ridiculous.

Not by case we indicated parallels to the history of christianisation
which had a similar structure. A rather speculative truth based on written
history was imposed on the medieval rural domains of Europe. An often quite
cruel and bloody history of conversion was diffused strategically from
secured cities and convents into the pagan country.
Evidently the urban superiority and dominance is a fairly ancient pheonomenon.
But, do we have to continue this tension on and on?

Loderer's missionary journey to Appenzell and his aggressive speech
in front of the farmers, and particularly the threat, they would have to
give up their traditional houses in favor of modern urban box-aesthetics,
fits quite well into this old, originally theocratic pattern of reasoning
and the urban centralistic dominance over the morally and strategically
dominated agrarian countryside. The urban norms are considered absolute.
They were not focused primarily at the population living in these regions.
Rather the maintenance of the territorial substance was basic and the territorio-legal
hegemony of the center.

The following goes with this. Evidently, in history tradition is unimportant.
And particularly in the history of art, disparaging attitudes are definitely
expressed. Traditional art lacks in regard to 'originality' and ingenuity.
Tradition is measured against the urban myth of the post-medieval profaned
creator genius. The result is blindness for the factual paradigms of traditional
art.

From a global and anthropological position the following is clear. In
the wider frame of human history, tradition is far more important than
what Loderer conjures up. Also in the urban context tradition is basic
for many human capacities, e.g. language and behavioural education. Far
more than half of the human communication rests directly or indirectly
on tradition. Fine arts, music, craft, all are essentially based on tradition.

The main problem is: Loderer has a much too narrow horizon. He is indoctrinated
by the contemporary urban values. This makes him feel obligated to move
to the countryside in order to do something morally positive (seen from
the city), namely to bring the poorly educated farmers the message of the
urban truth. What an incredible nparadox! About fourty fifty years late
he takes himself for the modern avant-garde, does his pilgrimage to help
the poorly educated land population to bring them his truth, but in fact
has his head still in the antiquated mentalities of the middle ages!

There is another point which consists in the fact, that tradition is
hardly explored. All the emphasis is on written history or on factually
conserved monuments. In this framework tradition is not important. However,
this was completely different in other times an dother cultures, for instance
in ancient China. Tradition was at least as important as written history.

In traditional societies ritually used and reproduced objects were archives
of the local history. Unfortunately, this does not show in the evolved
historical systems where cults are based on historically supported religions
and beliefs. Consequence: most traditional systems went through the meshes
of scientific methods or are heavily distorted by modern principles of
analytical science. In short, in contrast to our modern times and its playing
at dice for a better future, tradition is a very complex system of human
orientation which favours continuity through time. In this sense it could
also be used to balance modern risk-societies.

Traditional societies are organized in the framework of cyclic time
perception. They do not interprete their origins and identities from dated
'histories' or monuments, but from cyclically repeated constructive behaviours.
Consequently their values are not focussed on 'innovation' but in the contrary,
on continuity, on reliable traditions, in the objective, behavioural, verbal
(or linguistic) sense. Cults and rites, as reenaction of the origins of
an existential unit, a settlement, a cluster of settlements, a valley,
a region etc. These cyclic traditions determine the social hierarchy, local
power, the territorial responsibilities, organisation of work and feasts,
etc..

Thus, it is an incredible shortsightedness, to devalue tradition in
such ignorant ways. It is a rather bigoted attitude which is tolerated
in the field of architecture because architecture is somehow a theoretical
third world domain, which, however, does not hesitate to put its firsthand
experiments into our city spaces. To remin within the allusion to theology:
an architectural 'Reformation' is urgently needed.

TRADITION AS IDENTITY

Very likely Loderer has never taken the trouble to honor the famous
New Year's Eve St. Nicholas traditions of Urnäsch with his visit.
The strange clothing of these differentiated figures and their very contrasting
dances before the houses visited would have told him clearly that tradition
lives intensively here and even attracts peoples from all over the world!
Absolutely nothing of his big-mouthed prophecy of the death of tradition!
On the contrary. It wonderfully survives in spite of such narrow-minded
pseudo-rationalisms.

After this marvellous event had ended and before returning to his home
in the lowlands the author of this paper went to a shop to buy some of
the famous meat products of the Appenzell region as a tasty souvenir. There
was a short discussion with the shop owner about the three different types
of interacting figures in this event. We mentioned the wild and ugly ones
with their caricature faces clothed in grasses, branches and foliages as
they are supposed to come from the mountains to intrude into the human
order. And further the beautiful ones, who contrasted the savage ones with
their beautiful masks showing civilized woman and men, a part which developed
under the influence of the monastery of St. Gallen. And finally the semi-ugly
or beautiful ugly ones, who take an intermediate position. They are of
wild in their conduct, but are adorned on their heads and their backs with
traditional houses. All of them show the inner human and inter-human tension,
the eternal tension, which every person knows from experience. They are
alluding to the tension between nature and society, between passion and
education, between wild outbreaks and harmonious combinations. Marvellous
how this pattern of human tension is expressed in their behaviour. Lots
of walking through the high snow of the landscape, then arriving at the
place of a house. They first react wildly, to mark a chaotic stage moving
their bodies ekstatically thus shaking the bells loudly until the family
of the house comes down to tame the wild ones with drinks and offerings.
And soon the wild scene turns into culture. The group forms a circle. Very
beautiful songs are sung, a kind of gregorian choral music. Then they go
to the next house which may be quite far. Several times the shopowner winked
mischievously giving his consent with a smile.

One of the main aspects of this local tradition consists in the fact
that one still can read its basically pre-analytical worldview. Functionally
different objects or environments can be quasi identical depending on the
degree of harmonious balance they reflect. It is not the functional banality,
which defines the essence of things and environments, but their aesthetically
balanced structure. The more harmonious things are, the more they are the
same.

A wonderful worldview! Very likely it was globally known in traditional
societies. It does not emphasise the diversity of things. Determining them
is not of absolute importance as in the analytical worldview. It rather
emphasises the similarity of different objects or conditions in regard
of an elementary aesthetic concept, namely categorically polar harmony.
"High and low sounds produce a melody" is a statement we know from Heraclitus.
Very likely he was the last harmonical philosopher at the margins of the
Ancient Near East and Egypt.

Unfortunatley, like his worldwide predecessors, our urban architectural
missionary indoctrinated with the absolute truth of his GOODFORM-theology
had no appreciation of this philosophy of tradition. Is our world going
to pieces, maybe, because we have no more reliable theories in regard to
what it means to be human and to dwell reasonably?

The question remains open: How much horizon does an architectural theorist
need?